Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Misjoinder

Legal area

Court

1 Mar 2024

RICH ENGINEERING LTD v. FIRE SERVICE INSTALLATION CONTRACTORS DISCIPLINARY BOARD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 648
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2378/2020

The appeal is allowed in part: the Director was misjoined but the Board’s composition and conduct did not establish institutional bias; Regulation 9(3) was not breached; PSI and cross‑examination grounds failed; however convictions for Cases #19, #23 and #26 are unsafe due to inadequate reasons and insufficient notice and are set aside and remitted for rehearing before a differently constituted Board; conviction in Case #28 is set aside; convictions in Cases #20, #21, #22, #24, #25 and #27 stand but sentences are remitted for reconsideration with reasons; costs awarded with specified apportio…
25 Aug 2021

RE LEE YANG, SHIU CHUEN JOYCE

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2468
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1054/2021

The court found that the statutory preconditions of section 52(1)(b)(iii) were met (the shares were held on trust and the trustee corporations had been dissolved) and, notwithstanding procedural irregularities (failure to join the BVI Attorney General and commencing ex parte without leave to serve out of jurisdiction), the court exercised its discretion under the Rules to waive those irregularities and grant a vesting order vesting the right to transfer the shares and to receive accrued dividends in the Applicant, subject to limiting the decision to the facts of the case.
23 Aug 2021

TASTY CATERING GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHENG HUNG KIT AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1211
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV573/2020

The appeal was dismissed because (1) the Defence & Counterclaim contained no pleaded relief against D13 and therefore D13 need not be a party; (2) the proposed amendment to plead damages for duress against D13 was impermissible as a matter of law because duress generally yields restitution/rescission not a standalone tort for damages and, even if actionable, the pleaded case disclosed no reasonably arguable loss; and (3) the proposed amendments to challenge the August 2011 EGM would introduce a new cause of action that accrued after the commencement date, are time‑barred and fail the requirem…
23 Sept 2020

TASTY CATERING GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHENG HUNG KIT AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2477
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1130/2011

The court struck out the counterclaim as against the 13th defendant because no relief was pleaded or sought against him and his joinder was unnecessary; the proposed amendments were demurrable and constituted an abuse of process (a prior action already pursued), and the proposed new cause of action attacking the August 2011 EGM could not be introduced by amendment because it arose after the writ and did not satisfy s35(6) of the Limitation Ordinance, therefore the Amendment Summons was dismissed.
23 Sept 2020

CHENG HUNG KIT AND OTHERS v. TASTY CATERING GROUP LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2477
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1137/2011

The counterclaim as against the 13th defendant (JJ) is struck out because no relief was pleaded against him and the proposed amendments to add him are an abuse of process (a separate action already exists, no new loss identified, and duress does not support damages absent an actionable tort). The Amendment Summons to introduce a new cause of action impugning the August 2011 EGM is dismissed because the cause accrued after the date of the writ and does not satisfy Limitation Ordinance s35(6) and Order 20 requirements, and is therefore time‑barred and not properly introduced by amendment.
11 Oct 2018

LEELOONG INVESTMENT CO LTD v. LAU KWONG & HUNG (a firm of solicitors)

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2244
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP868/2018

The court found that Lau Kwong & Hung did not have authority from Leeloong to file the Notice to Act and that the DHCJ Seagroatt Order could not be construed as conferring such authority or as enabling LKH to pursue a common law derivative action; accordingly the Notice to Act dated 11 May 2018 was set aside and costs were awarded to the applicant where appropriate.
11 Oct 2018

CHEN HA PING HEPBURN (as executrix of the estate of CHEN TSING KWAN, deceased) AND OTHERS v. CHEN TING SAN DANIEL also known as CHEN TING SAN and DANIEL CHEN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2244
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA570/2014

The court held that the DHCJ order could not be construed as conferring authority on Lau Kwong & Hung to act for Leeloong; the Notice to Act filed by Lau Kwong & Hung was therefore not supported by authority and was set aside; costs consequences follow the presumption in CPR 38.6 unless the claimant demonstrates a good reason to depart from it.
1 Aug 2018

吳大国對万洲国际有限公司

Citation

[2018] HKCA 437
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP55/2018

The amended statement of claim was properly struck out because the evidence objectively showed the online offeror was a different corporate entity (Great Continents International Limited) distinct from the respondent (WH Group Limited / 万洲国际有限公司); similarity in Chinese names and pleaded assertions of group leadership without substantial evidence cannot sustain a cause of action against the respondent, so the appeal had no real prospect of success and leave to appeal was refused.
22 May 2017

HKSAR v. N. S. H.

Citation

HKSAR v. N. S. H.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC15/2017

There was sufficient factual nexus between the counts so the indictment was not misjoined and therefore not invalid, but exercising discretion under s23(3) CPO the court ordered severance: leave granted to prefer two fresh indictments separating the criminal intimidation counts (Counts 1 and 3-7) from the indecent assault and rape counts (Counts 2 and 8); trial to proceed first on the indecent assault and rape indictment with the intimidation indictment to be listed later or transferred depending on the result.
20 Jan 2015

LAI KAM MAN AND OTHERS v. WONG JING AND OTHERS

Citation

LAI KAM MAN AND OTHERS v. WONG JING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2132/2013

The court held as a matter of law on the pleadings and available evidence that the Association cannot be a public charity: the defined beneficiary class (Hakka people resident in Hong Kong, China and abroad) is not an identifiable territorial or appreciably important section of the public and the memorandum contains many substantive non‑charitable objects and demonstrated non‑charitable activities (including political activity), so the Association fails the public benefit and exclusivity limbs of the Pemsel test; accordingly the Originating Summons is plain, bound to fail and is struck out an…